Jury Hears Final Arguments in FedEx Flight Safety Trial

One former and two current employees at FedEx’s LAX location were wrongfully disciplined by the courier giant when they alleged the company put profits ahead of safety by not maintaining its aircraft consistent with FAA safety requirements, their lawyer told a jury Thursday.

“And now we ask you, will you stand up for safety,” lawyer Nancy Abrolat inquired of a Los Angeles Superior Court panel hearing final arguments in the consolidated lawsuit brought by fired FedEx aircraft mechanic Brian Gruzalski and Stanley Langevin and Mark Collins, who still work for FedEx.

But FedEx attorney Jane Flynn countered that Gruzalski deserved to be fired for allegedly using inappropriate language in the workplace, some of it racial, and that he did not deny making the remarks when confronted with them.

Flynn said Langevin was demoted for allegedly moonlighting on company time for other airlines with FedEx equipment and that Collins did not use his authority as the others’ supervisor to stop their behavior.

Flynn said that although the FedEx jets are older than others in the fleet, they are all flightworthy.

“They care about their planes and they are not putting up unsafe planes,” Flynn said.

Gruzalski, 50, of Canyon Country waited until some of the FedEx planes left on delivery flights before making his safety allegations, Flynn said.

Like this story? Don’t miss any breaking news from MyNewsLA.com. Sign up here for your free newsletter.

Email Address

“It took time and a lot of money to bring these planes back to be inspected,” Flynn said.

Abrolat said Flynn’s frequent references to Gruzalski’s language in the workplace was meant to “divert attention away from safety.”

Langevin, 69, of Long Beach, has more than 40 years experience as an aircraft technician and also is an Air Force veteran. He maintains he was retaliated against when he complained about the condition of many FedEx aircraft.

“Langevin uncovered a calculated, illegal scheme by FedEx whereby FedEx routinely and knowingly returned non-airworthy aircraft to service despite the need for further repair/maintenance in order to comply with federal aviation regulations,” the suit states. “FedEx was more concerned with returning the aircraft to flight quickly and cheaply in order to increase their profits than with ensuring compliance with the federal aviation regulations.

The suit cites as examples what it alleges are routine failures to repair corrosion extensive enough to crack the aircraft’s outer frame before allowing them to be flown.

Collins, a Navy veteran who fought in the Persian Gulf War during Operation Desert Storm, faced a backlash because he defended Langevin, the suit alleges.

“Collins fully supported Langevin’s complaints and voiced his own complaints regarding the same illegal practices,” the suit states. “Collins further objected to and refused to be a party to FedEx’s pattern of retaliation against the whistle-blowers.”

FedEx management responded by refusing to promote Collins, by “screaming at him” and by treating him in a “hostile and rude manner” as well as shunning him, the suit states.

Collins also maintains FedEx failed to assist him in making it easier for him to cope at work with his Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Jury Hears Final Arguments in FedEx Flight Safety Trial was last modified: October 11th, 2018 by Contributing Editor